Thanks, Jason. And thank you, High Country Baptist Church, for your kind hospitality to us in having this here. It's good to be here. And this is a valuable time. I was at the conference in Arizona last January. I want to say it was January. We had a really good time. And so I'm glad we're doing this again, making plans to try to do it again. I'm not going to preempt any announcements that you have to make, Scott. All right, that's right, the big unveil. So it's good to be here today and I'm thankful for the opportunity and the privilege of speaking to all of you. May I ask for us to begin this session with a word of prayer, shall we pray? Father, I do pray that you would open up our minds and our hearts to see and understand your word more faithfully as a result of this time. I pray that you would take what is sound in my study and my explanation of your word and let it stick. And I pray that you would remove what is dross and give these people even critical ears as they hear and listen. Give them attentiveness and I pray that they would They would glorify your name as they as they savor your word and delight themselves in it. Thank you, Father, for Jesus Christ, our Savior, and for the and for how you have made us as men and women in your sight, how we bear your image and how we love. And I ask that we would love rightly and do all that we do for your glory in Jesus name. Amen. If I could give a caveat at the very beginning, this is something that I would still consider green and something I'm working on. I welcome your input if there are things that you think are red flags. I'm certainly not so not so confident in my own understanding that I would be above any kind of interaction or critical interaction even, so I welcome that. In your handout, your little blue thing, it's called Human Affectivity According to the Scriptures. I think that's probably a little obtuse. Why don't we just call it Human Affections According to the Scriptures? The question that I'd like to begin with is, what are emotions, and what do they have to do with the Bible? We just heard about the Bible a great deal, and now I want to interact a little bit more on what the scriptures actually say about human affections. As Gordon Clark, I don't know if you know who Gordon Clark is, an apologist, Little, you know, an interesting guy. I never met him, of course, but Gordon Clark observed that in his little book on the biblical doctrine of man, he observed that the word emotion is not found in scripture. As conservatives, we're concerned that our love for God is ardent and rightly ordered. Many Christian writers, when discussing the role of love, in the Christian life are very quick to move to start talking about the believer's emotions. But given the scarcity of the term, even in modern English translations, to say nothing of its absence in older translations, we ought to at least raise the question, does the Bible describe love and affections like we do today. My emphasis, I'll interact with the Old Testament a little bit this afternoon, but my emphasis is going to be on the New Testament especially. The real genesis of this topic this afternoon is my study on the way Jonathan Edwards defined and described affections. I wanted to understand what Edwards meant in his, meant by terms like affections and passions in works that he wrote, works like religious affections, or some thoughts concerning the revival, or distinguishing marks of a work of the spirit of God, or the end for which God created the world, or the nature of true virtue. What did he mean when he would use these terms in these works? Many scholars and evangelical writers have no problem explaining that Edwards's notion of affections is basically the same as what we call emotions today. But I disagree. I want to give you just a little bit more historical background. I think when we're talking about emotions, a good definition to use, a good working definition is one that I found. It's by Ronald de Sousa. And his definition of emotions is, I think, helpful, especially emotions as it's used in popular thought. And he defines emotions this way. The simple theory of emotions And perhaps the theory most representative of common sense is that emotions are simply a class of feelings differentiated from sensation and proprioceptions by their experience quality. Now, proprioceptions are things like things that you feel inside the body. Let's say hunger, for example, your stomach growling. Yet, as Thomas, a scholar who wrote a book published by Cambridge University Press, a guy named Thomas Dixon, as he observed, emotions in this sense, in the sense of the definition, a class of feelings, what Thomas Dixon showed was that emotions in this sense are a modern construct that arose out of scientism and materialism, especially in the 19th century, whereas pre-modern thinkers considered human affections as actions of the intellectual powers of the inner man. Today, many understand them to be passive, uncontrollable feelings. This is the way it's talked about, I think, most often. There are exceptions to this. I'm not going to get into those for our purposes this afternoon. But in addition to this, modern thinkers consider man, of course, pure physicality, right? Modern thinkers consider man to be basically matter, material, physical, pure physicality, rather than a creature with a united soul and body. And Thomas Dixon is not the only one who's shown a disconnect between the way Christian theology, for example, has historically thought about human affections and the way the English-speaking world considers emotions. Thomas Dixon notices that there's a difference. And the Christian theologian, Gordon Clark, if I could quote him again, he also observed this. I'm going to quote Gordon Clark at length. He says this, this emphasis on the will, and he's describing an emphasis on the will, he's showing it from scripture, and he's actually interacting with Edwards a little bit in this paragraph, but he's saying this emphasis on the will has almost totally disappeared from what passes as Christian preaching. Freudianism has replaced it with emotions. Most pew warmers do not realize that this re-emphasis is a very modern development. One can go back to the Westminster divines, to Calvin, to Aquinas and Augustine, and will find that human nature is regularly divided into intellect and will. Emotions in theology seem to be a 20th century invention. He continues, this development naturally altered people's views on regeneration and sanctification. That's kind of a different topic, but it's true. But Clark and Dixon, I believe, are right, that there is a difference in the way Christian theologians in the past have talked about affections and the way people think about emotions today. With respect to Edwards himself, let's just talk about how Edwards thought about it as just a kind of a case in point. He, like other theologians and pastors who preceded him for centuries, did not think of affections and passions as feelings per se, although he recognized a corporeal or a bodily quality in the affections of those who had an inscrutably united body and soul. It's a mystery how our soul and body are united. I think we can all agree on that. If you have the answer on how our soul and our body interact, and they're united in one person, you can come and fill me in on how all those things work. But they're inscrutably united. And we recognize there's a corporeal quality, but nobody thought about them as feelings per se. In fact, there are two key differences. And these two key differences are going to be important for what we have to talk about from scripture. And that's where we're headed. And the first difference is this, and this is key. The far greater emphasis for somebody like Edwards was on affections as inclinations or aversions. When I say inclination or aversion, are you tracking with me? Something that you're drawn to or you're repelled away from in your inner person, so to speak. Inclinations or aversions. as movements of the soul. In his classic work, Religious Affections, Edwards said this, and this might sound familiar if you've read Religious Affections, the affections are no other than the more vigorous and sensible exercises of the inclination and the will. There it is, the will of the soul, he actually says. The inclination and the will, which are very closely related, right? When you're willing something, you want it. You're inclined towards it. And even if you're avoiding something, there's an aversion there, you don't want that thing because you want something else. Let's say I'm walking on a country path and I come across a bear. Why do I seek to avoid the bear? Because I value my life. I love my life. So because I love my life, I'm inclined toward my life, I avoid, there's an aversion to the bear. Okay, hopefully this, I'm not trying to, I just want it to be clear. I hope I'm being clear. Edwards very typically for his time period associates affections with the will. He says they are the more vigorous and sensible acts of the will. You may want or will without much thought or care. Do I get a Reuben or a loaded Italian at Arby's? And you're just torn between, but you don't really care that much in the end because you know you're going to feel bad two hours later anyway. Sorry if you work for Arby's. I'm not offending you. I love the Reuben and I love the loaded Italian. That's not my point. But you may want or will something without much thought or care. Those aren't affections. But when the will is more vigorous or strong, that is an affection. An affection is a strong desire, love, want, or an inclination of a person. So that's the first key difference between older models and recent models. The older models thought of affections as inclinations, strong inclinations. Second key difference is this. Edwards frequently, again like many before him, distinguished between higher affections and lower passions. For instance, in his book Some Thoughts concerning the present revival of religion, which is a work he wrote during the Great Awakening. Edwards offers this explanation of the difference between affections and passions. I'm going to quote him at length. If you've read Edwards at all, you know this is, you better gird up the loins of your mind for this paragraph. He says this, there are many exercises of the affections that are very flashy and little to be depended on. And oftentimes there is a great deal that appertains to them, or rather that is the effect of them, that has its seat in the animal nature. And is very much owing to the constitution and frame of the body. And that which is sometimes more especially obtains the name of passion. is nothing solid or substantial, but it is a false philosophy to suppose that this to be the case with all exercises of affection in the soul, or with all great and high affections, and false divinity to suppose that religious affections don't appertain to the substance and essence of Christianity. On the contrary, it seems to me that the very life and soul of all true religion consists in them, that is, in the affections. So what is he saying? He's saying that there are two kinds of movements, affections and passions. The passions pertain more to the body. The affections are very important, and they're very important in religion. And if you've read Religious Affections, you're convinced of that already. I don't even have to tell you that, because he argues that case very persuasively, in my opinion. But this distinction between affections and passions was a common theme, as I said, not only in Edwards, but also in many pre-modern Christian theologians. Affections were seen as acts, higher affections were seen as acts of the will, not properly distinguished from the will, acts of the will. toward or away from rational or spiritual good or evil. He understood passions as the soul's movement toward bodily or corporeal good or evil. So if I could put it this way, not that I have time to go off of what I have written here, but just to try to make it clear, if I meditate on Christ redeeming love for me and his shed blood on the cross for me despite my sins. And because of the spirits working as I meditate on scripture, I'm drawn to Christ. I love him. That's an act of the will, my immaterial part. If I drive by Little Caesars, And I'm drawn to pizza. That's not being drawn through my immaterial inner man. That's my stomach telling me, you like pizza, you've had that before, and you should try that again. And then I feed the appetite, which kind of exacerbates the problem because habits develop, okay, let's not get into all of the details of how passions work, but if you feed them, they will be alive within you. You know this, right? If you have chocolate for six nights before you go to bed, what do you want the seventh night? You want chocolate. Anyway, okay, I'm not telling you anything you don't know. This is fine for Edwards to say this. It's fine for him to make these distinctions, right? But how does the Bible itself speak of human affections? It's one thing to describe the thought of Christian theologians and history concerning these topics and categories, but another matter whether their thought accurately reflects the teaching of our sole authority for faith and practice, that which is able to make us thoroughly equipped for every good work. And that's the concern of this paper. the divinely revealed character of Christian affections ought to be of supreme concern to Christians, let alone Christian ministers. For this is how we, by the grace of God, fulfilled the two great commandments, that we're to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, that we're to love our neighbor as ourself. We ought to know what it is to love. We ought to act upon it. We ought to be concerned, am I loving rightly? Are my loves ordered properly? So how do the scriptures themselves speak of human affections? Do they reflect this model? And to answer these questions, I wanna compare scripture to both the facets that I just explained or summarized from Edwards. First, affections as inclinations and aversions. Does the scripture bear that out? And second, the distinction between affections and passions. And then I wanna give some theological caveats, and then I wanna say why it matters, and if I run out of time, Scott's promised to give me an extra 30 minutes. I'm just kidding. Actually, I came up to him about, I don't know, before Kevin spoke, and I didn't even ask. He just said, no, you can't have more time. So I don't get more time. So that's good news for you. So first, affections as inclinations and aversions. And actually, when you look at how the scriptures talk about affections, they almost always speak of human affections in terms of inclination or aversion. When the Holy Spirit inspired the sacred writings, the authors of scripture, he carried along, used words like we all do. They did not always use words as technical terms, let alone as trans-time, unchanging theological terms. For example, the word phileo and agapao word groups, they're not always synonymous, but then we see that sometimes they have overlapping meaning. But still, even though the authors of scripture aren't always speaking with technical terms, we can reach some general conclusions about how the authors of scripture described affections. This is how I went about this. There is a Greek-English lexicon. It's published by United Bible Societies, and it's a well-respected Greek-English lexicon. The editors are Lowe and Nida. And it's called the Greek Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. And that's especially helpful in this little project, how does the Bible talk about affections and these movements of the soul, if you will, because it groups words. This lexicon groups words according to the families of ideas that they express. So you'd have a family of ideas for The mind, for example. You have a family of words, family of ideas for acts of piety, faith, and godliness, and so forth. Okay. Under their major section, and they have a major section called Attitudes and Emotions, they have Attitudes and Emotions, and they have 24 different subdomains, or those are more specific groupings. Don't get confused by subdomains. The first three, I think, are most important. So they have Attitudes and Emotions is the main heading, and then they have 24 subdomains, And the first three of these 24 subdomains, the first is desire, want, wish. B, desire strongly. And C, love, affection, compassion. Those are the most fundamental. While the others describe various specific affective states, like thankful, happy, courage, pride, and fear. They get more specific as they go along. But those are the big bigger categories. Now, of the first two groups, desire and desire strongly is the language of what they call emotions. Remember, the main heading is attitudes and emotions, right? And then underneath that, they have desire, want, wish, and desire strongly. Now, desire, want, wish, and desire strongly. Does that sound to you like inclinations and aversions? Does that sound to you like that? It does. Good. Just shake your heads yes and agree with me. That's helpful. That's desire, that's love, that's being inclined towards something. So, the first two are titles, as the titles make clear, of the subdomains, are basically desire, will, or love. It's the soul's inclination. And many of them are cognates. Many of the words we see on those lists are words like, they're cognates of love, phileo, agapao, sphlanknon, or pathos. Now the discussion, as we keep going here, we'll look at some of those terms more closely, but the key idea here is that in a highly regarded lexicon, the biblical terms listed for a person's affections can be understood as components of love, will, inclination, or desire, rather than feeling. Right there, in Lo and Nida. The Bible describes affections as intricately connected to a person's will or love. As Augustine said of the motions of the soul, the will is in them all. This is how Augustine talked about the motions of the soul. The will is in them all. Yea, none of them is anything else than will. And that's reflected right here in those first two. For instance, many people equate words like pathos Pathos or path Aima with emotion passion that's emotion right as if the terms are interchangeable That's the way we hear lots of people speak today But when the New Testament uses these terms to speak of our inner states the emphasis is not on feeling but on desire or inclination consider Paul's words in Galatians 5 24 and And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its, do you remember how it completes? Passion and desires. This is an especially helpful use of pathema, or passion, for it is set parallel beside desires. I'm going to return again to this family of words below, but it's important to understand the basic love or willing involved even in a term like pathos or pathema. In Lo and Nida's section, the third section they have, love, affection, and compassion, there are 26 different terms listed. And if you look at 25 of them, you're just going to have to take my word for it. I can't list them all for you and give you a definition. They're listed in a footnote in the paper if you have access to it. But there are 26 different terms listed, and 25 of them are expressions of explicit inclination or aversion. Only one word. Embrimaomai appears to have anything to do with strong feelings per se. The word embrimaomai can sometimes refer to being stern or scolding someone, but also it speaks of affections. It stands for being deeply moved. That's the sense that we get there for that word. And we see it twice in John 11. It's at the tomb of Lazarus where Jesus is twice said to be deeply moved. It's in John 11, 33 and 38. And verse 33 is especially instructive, which says this, when Jesus saw her weeping, the Jews and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, he was deeply moved. There's our word. He was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled. So this is grief and trouble in spirit. Jesus' grief is contextually tied to his love, not only for Lazarus' sisters, but also for Lazarus himself. For after seeing the Messiah weep over this man, the crowd wonders, see how much he what? You remember how it completes? Loved him. So even a word like Embrima omae ought not be considered pure feeling, but the grief of deep and genuine love. Love for Lazarus' sisters, mourning the loss of their brother. love for Lazarus as well. And clearly scripture acknowledges and assumes that bodily feelings are involved with human affections. But even when feelings are in view, which is of course the case with the Splunk Nun family of words, which we'll talk about in a moment, the vast majority of terms for love and affections are better considered to be desires or inclinations or wishes than mere feelings as such. Now, to be clear, I do not believe that affections are purely immaterial. I believe that affections and passions almost always, if not always, have a corresponding effect on the body as long as we are embodied. Now, I'm not sure, I can't even explain to you what it would be like in heaven to have a feeling of love. You can work that out on your own. In the body, our heart may beat faster. Your stomach may ache over grief or even flip. Your ears may burn when you're angry. And in fact, the biblical authors, like their contemporaries, use terms like coelia, belly, or splanchnin, which is the various upper internal organs, or nephros, kidney, or cardiac heart, because of the inscrutable connection between a person's love or desire, that inclination, and the bodily response that so often accompanied it. But I don't think that's what's being emphasized. My point is that scriptures emphasize human affections as inclinations or aversions of the inner man or soul, not as mere feelings or even quasi-cognitive feelings, but as what we want, what we will, what we love, what we desire. I'm pushing you, in accordance with the scriptures, to think about them this way. It will help you a lot. It really will. Instead of just having these amorphous, feelings going in and out of you for different things and they're out of your control, all of a sudden you see how you are a willing person. And what you love is what this is really all about. Now that's admittedly, what I just gave you was a short survey, but it seems to support the understanding of human affections that Edwards and other pre-modern theologians held. At very least we can conclude that traditional theology had a plausible warrant from scripture for the understanding of affections it perpetuated, that is the understanding of affections as inclinations or aversions. It had an exegetical basis even. for their understanding. But what about the distinction between affections and passions? Contemporary commentators, so we're now into the second key difference. Contemporary commentators have often observed the rich contours of the language inspired scripture uses of affections. The biblical mindset And its careful explanation of our inner man stands in stark relief against the great big bucket that we have to basically carry all notions of emotions in popular thought today. We just kind of throw all these different movements of the soul into a big bucket, we call it emotions, anytime we feel anything. But the authors of scripture had a lot more, they were a lot more careful. They were a lot more nuanced and part of that is a reflection of the culture and of course God using those ideas And even developing those ideas in the scriptures today. Even consider the different ideas for love. I don't have time to get into it, but there's numerous different facets of love in scripture represented by words like storge and phileo and agapao and others. The authors of scripture, by the way, a little source on that would be Leon Morris has a little book called The Testaments of Love, and he talks a little bit about that. You can look at C.S. Lewis and his classic The Four Loves. But the authors of scripture not only distinguish different kinds of love, but I believe also different kinds of affections or inclinations. In scripture, we see an affirmation that inner and outer humanity are capable of distinct desires corresponding to the outer man, that is, The outer man being the body and the inner man being the soul. And this is seen most clearly in the New Testament with the use of the words coelia and splencmen. The word coelia is most often translated belly. And it refers to the lower organs in humans or in animals. Figuratively, however, the word, it actually I think appears only once in referring to your actual anatomy. It most often refers figuratively to, it refers to the sense appetites that arouse passions or desires of the outer man toward things that please the senses. The desires represented by the belly are not intrinsically evil, and I'll talk more about that in a moment, but they often lead men into sin. So, in Philippians 3.19. Describing the enemies of Christ's cross, Paul says, their end is destruction, their God is their belly, there's our word, quaelia, and they glory in their shame with minds set on earthly themes. So here are wayward men, possibly apostates, who are so divided or devoted to gratifying the passions aroused by the belly, the belly is like a god to them, Paul says. And they're enemies of the cross of Christ because of that. It drives them, because their belly is their god, it drives them to sensuality, to gluttony, and sin. Gordon Fee, in his commentary on Philippians, expresses some uncertainty on what the meaning of belly is in the passage, but he surmises, this is his conclusion, that it is intended to be more representative of those who are so given over to present bodily desires of all kinds, represented by the appetites, that such has become a god to them. I couldn't have said it better myself. And belly has the same sense in Romans 16, 18, where Paul says, I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught. He says, avoid them for such persons do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ but their own, and the ESV translates it, appetites. It's coelia, belly. They serve their own belly. That's their Lord. Their Lord is not Jesus. It's their belly. Their appetite for sense pleasure, for bodily pleasure. The passions answer the belly or the sense appetite. in scripture, the passions, that's the rule, the passions, not always, but often, maybe not even often, but can play. Let me put it that way, because sometimes pathos refers to suffering, just pure suffering, like the suffering of Christ. But in three places, Paul uses pathos, or passion, to describe the desires of a person for the sense world. For example, I think the clearest of these is Romans 1.26, where God removes his restraint from unbelieving man with the result You remember Romans 1. What happens after he removes his restraint from unbelievers? Humanity debases itself into deeper sin. And it says in verse 26, for this reason, God gave them up to dishonorable passions. And here, in context, the dishonorable passions are manifested in the sins of homosexuality. In Colossians 3.5, Paul does not expand on the meaning of passions, but the sense still seems to be unbridled desires toward perceived sense good. He says, put to death, therefore, what is earthly in you, sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Paul warns the Thessalonian church. to abstain from sexual immorality, urging them to use their bodies, he says, in holiness and control. This is in 1 Thessalonians 4, of course. He says, not in passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God. There's our word again. Paul seems to regard the passions, at least in some passages, as the desires or the strong inclinations that would answer to the belly or sense appetites. The Apostle Peter, for his part, has a strong emphasis on the sensuality of the false teachers throughout 2 Peter 2, which is a striking passage. We just read it in our public worship service this last Lord's Day. Read all of chapter 2 as we go through different books of the Bible, and 2 Peter 2 sobers you up. And he describes, he even compares those given over to such desires as irrational animals. in 2 Peter 2.12, compare 1 Corinthians 15.32. That makes a lot of sense for what controls an animal? Not rational loves, not inclinations of the soul, but, ooh, food, right? Here's a puppy treat. You know, you just panted like a dog. Apologize, Jason, you deserve better. They respond corporeally, like animals. And if someone's driven by bodily desires, what are they acting like? They're acting like an animal, uncontrollable by anything higher. And this, by the way, is something we see in earlier writers, too, a very common tendency to compare those given over to sensuality of all kinds. to acting like animals. The term, so that's passions and belly. The term Splenchnin, by contrast, refers to higher desires and higher appetites of the inner person. When referring to human or animal anatomy, when we're just talking about anatomy, Splenchnin often referred to the higher entrails, like the heart or the kidneys. When you, and remember, belly is the lower ones, right? When used figuratively of a person's inner life, the noun Splunkman refers to the seed of the affections, the heart, love, or even the affections themselves. In fact, Zechariah, not the prophet in the Old Testament, but the one who is prophesying in Luke chapter one, the priest, Zechariah, uses the term Splunkman with reference to God himself because of the tender mercy, the Splunkna, of our God, the tender mercy of our God. In stark contrast with Qualia, the New Testament never uses the term with respect to sinful or dishonorable affections or loves, never uses the term splint not in that way. Paul said, Affections in saints are distinctly spiritual, Philippians 2.1. And in Christ, as he says in Philippians 1.8, for God is my witness, how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus. There is Jesus Christ or our union with him transforming the very affections themselves. Compare Philippian or Philemon 20, but as a verb, The verb splenchnizomai means to show mercy or feel sympathy, and it's almost always used of our Lord Jesus as the Christ during his earthly ministry. He is one who is compassionate, who has right affections, and affections that love others and shows them compassion. Keep in mind what was observed earlier, by the way, that human affectivity or affections in scripture is almost always a matter of inclination and aversion. We see that with coelia or belly, we see it with passions, and we see it with affections. Their inclinations, compassion towards someone means you're drawn to them. You love them. This principle is reflected in the loving and affectionate character of Splank Men. Okay, how about some caveats as we speed to our conclusion? Might actually get it done in time. So here's a few caveats. Maybe you're tracking with what I'm saying. I want to give you at least a few concerns. If you're not tracking well, maybe this will help. I don't know. But first, the flesh, sarx, is a different thing in scripture than bodily passions or desires. I just want to be really clear. Instead, when the scripture uses flesh in a figurative or moral sense, it nearly always speaks to the sinfulness of all humanity as humanity, not the sinfulness of humanity as embodied creatures. To consider something according to the flesh, for example, is to think about it in a merely human way, a natural way, apart from the spirit. 2 Corinthians 5, 16-17. The term flesh is used for sinful humanity because all human beings have flesh in common. And all people by nature reject God and seek their own good or glory by nature. Paul says in Romans 8, 5, for those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit live according to the spirit. Because of the remnants of indwelling sin, Christians are still tempted to live according to the flesh, but Christ gives life through the spirit so that we can walk in righteousness. Romans 8, 9 through 11. Second caveat, the distinction between higher and lower affections does not mean that bodily desires are by nature sinful. Just to be very clear, you need to eat. You need to sleep. These are good things. In fact, the Bible says, for everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and by prayer. Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, experienced bodily desires. He said, I thirst. That's just one example. He needed sleep, et cetera. Sense appetites are a subordinate good in a person with ordinate affections as they are temporal and changing, especially in light of the changeless God who will bring us into his eternal kingdom. that the Bible presents simple human beings as profoundly abusing the desires of the body. I think we know this is the case. For we ourselves, Titus 3.3 says, were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures. Human depravity often finds itself enslaved to bodily desires such that men and women are led away from God through inordinate attachment to sense pleasure. And for this reason, Christians ought to discipline the outer man and its desires. Furthermore, unregenerate man is bent toward carrying out the desires of the body and the mind. In other words, even though the inner man is the seat of religion, which is what we must say, The soulish or immaterial or inner mind of man is also totally depraved before regeneration. And this depravity expresses itself in what we might call sins of the spirit, like pride, haughtiness, ignorance, envy, blasphemy, impiety, idolatry. And as a corollary, while scripture consistently distinguishes inner and outer humanity, that distinction and the interrelation of those parts is mysterious and ought not be stressed so as to do damage to the wholeness and unity of people as human beings. So if you're thinking, boy, you're really dualistic, Ryan Martin, well, hopefully that sentence helps you think I'm not just totally dualistic. Finally, but, But just read your Bible, by the way, and you'll get something of a dualism. I know, can I even say that? That might offend people very much today, but I'm just, it's there. Okay, final caveat. The affections that Christians have for God and men are not natural. When a person loves God, that is not a natural thing because we're depraved in body and in soul. The result of our affections for God is a work of grace. They are gracious affections, and we have affections for God. This, of course, is the whole point of religious affections, but I have to at least echo it. Unbelievers cannot love God. The Spirit of God is the one who regenerates believers, and this Spirit gives to God's children the love or affection they have for God. Romans 5.5, God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. Or the Apostle John in 1 John 4, 12 and 13. No one has seen God. If we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. By this we know we abide in him and he in us because he has given us of his spirit who is giving us the grace to love him and others as we ought to love You, no one has religious affections without the work of the spirit of God. While God has given us the elements of worship to nurture and cultivate holy affections, truly holy affections for God are the results of God's grace in our lives. So what? Why does this matter? Maybe you're asking yourself that as we've been going along. Well, let me try to bring this home with just a few foreclosing points that will surely make, it might, I'll just give them to you. Do with it what you will. I believe that we as Christians ought to be clear on what affections and passions are. We ought not to stress people's emotions as feelings, at least as they are properly understood, but as people's inclinations, loves, values, and desires. And I believe this will bear fruit for those of you who are teaching and preaching God's word on a regular basis. It not only helps us understand our affections, but it helps us understand what it means to be good and virtuous with respect to these movements. I don't have time to get into that, but it has often been the case when Christian men have reflected on the nature of true virtue that affections and what you want quickly comes into view. point is this, the distinction between affections and passions vindicates why Christian ministries should never make undue appeals for Christianity through the passions. This is especially true in our time, given over to sensuality and a moderate emphasis on the desires of the body. It is the soul that is the seat of religion. As C.S. Lewis observed, the head rules the body through the chest. And again, the right defense against false sentiments, false affections and loves is to inculcate just sentiments. Third, churches and Christian ministries ought to understand that the artifacts of popular culture are often manufactured in order to deliberately exploit the passions and visceral appetites of men. Christian worship ought never to be overtly sensual. It always has to have a component of bodily expression. You sing, and your body's moving, and you sit, and you're listening, and disciplining your body not to fall asleep. You read with your eyes, and you have feelings as... you love. There is always a component of physicality there, but it's never overtly sensual. Its appeal ought never to be primarily to the outer man. Moreover, we ought to shun and avoid attempts to draw sinners to the gospel or Christians to spiritual maturity through appeals to their appetites for various forms of outer pleasure, including food, sex, and comfort. And all of those things I think you know all too well are being done today, all of them. Such methods confuse and undermine true Christian spirituality and holy affections. God is holy and glorious in and of himself. We cannot expect to love God rightly if our God is our belly. And we are undermining the project that we have as ministers and as Christian people if we're feeding the belly all the time. The fear of the Lord is not taught that way. And finally, we ought to love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. He deserves our highest and our best love. As we behold him by spirit quickened faith, as he has revealed himself in Jesus Christ, he will tune our heart to seeing his grace. And then we will know that benediction that Paul offered in Ephesians 6.24. Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, with love incorruptible, incorruptible love.